Obama’s New National Security Strategy Is Rabidly Anti-Russian

U.S. President Barack Obama’s just-issued National Security Strategy 2015 uses the term “aggression” precisely 18 times, all but one of which are either explicitly, or else possibly, referring to Russia, as allegedly doing the alleged “aggression” — never the U.S., and on only one occasion is he identifying North Korea with that term of opprobrium. Presumably, he thinks that Russia is by far the most “aggressive” country.

His new National Security Strategy is actually even obsessed with Russia, as being the virtually exclusive “aggressor” in the world. He especially alleges Russia’s “aggression” in Ukraine, where Obama himself was the actual aggressor: Obama’s Ukrainian coup in February 2014 replaced a neutral Ukrainian President with an entire regime that is passionately anti-Russian; and many members of this regime are on record as aiming to wipe Russia entirely off the map — but Obama is not the “aggressor,” supposedly.

Here are all 18 occasions in which Obama uses the term “aggression” in this important document:

He states, on page 2:

“We mobilized and are leading global efforts to impose costs to counter Russian aggression.”

On page 3:

“Now, at this pivotal moment, we continue to face serious challenges to our national security, even as we are working to shape the opportunities of tomorrow. Violent extremism and an evolving terrorist threat raise a persistent risk of attacks on America and our allies. Escalating challenges to cybersecurity, aggression by Russia, the accelerating impacts of climate change, and the outbreak of infectious diseases all give rise to anxieties about global security. …

We are leading international coalitions to confront the acute challenges posed by aggression, terrorism, and disease. We are leading over 60 partners in a global campaign to degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, including by working to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to those countries, while keeping pressure on al-Qa’ida. We are leading a global effort to stop the deadly spread of the Ebola virus at its source. In lockstep with our European allies, we are enforcing tough sanctions on Russia to impose costs and deter future aggression.”

Then on page 4:

“India’s potential, China’s rise, and Russia’s aggression all significantly impact the future of major power relations.”

And, on page 7:

“There is no substitute for American leadership whether in the face of aggression, in the cause of universal values, or in the service of a more secure America.”

On page 8:

“U.S. forces will continue to defend the homeland, conduct global counterterrorism operations, assure allies, and deter aggression through forward presence and engagement. If deterrence fails, U.S. forces will be ready to project power globally to defeat and deny aggression in multiple theaters.”

On page 10:

“North Korean provocation and tensions in the East and South China Seas are reminders of the risks of escalation. American diplomacy and leadership, backed by a strong military, remain essential to deterring future acts of inter-state aggression and provocation by reaffirming our security commitments to allies and partners.” [This is the only instance in which Obama specifically alleges an “aggressor” that’s not Russia.]

On page 13:

The United States has an enduring interest in freedom of navigation and overflight as well as the safety and sustainability of the air and maritime environments. We will therefore maintain the capability to ensure the free flow of commerce, to respond quickly to those in need, and to deter those who might contemplate aggression.”

On page 19:

“Many of the threats to our security in recent years arose from efforts by authoritarian states to oppose democratic forces—from the crisis caused by Russian aggression in Ukraine to the rise of ISIL within the Syrian civil war. By the same token, many of our greatest opportunities stem from advances for liberty and rule of law—from sub-Saharan Africa to Eastern Europe to Burma.”

On page 23:

“Targeted economic sanctions remain an effective tool for imposing costs on those irresponsible actors whose military aggression, illicit proliferation, or unprovoked violence threaten both international rules and norms and the peace they were designed to preserve.”

On pages 25-26 he states:

“Russia’s aggression in Ukraine makes clear that European security and the international rules and norms against territorial aggression cannot be taken for granted. In response, we have led an international effort to support the Ukrainian people as they choose their own future and develop their democracy and economy. We are reassuring our allies by backing our security commitments and increasing responsiveness through training and exercises, as well as a dynamic presence in Central and Eastern Europe to deter further Russian aggression. This will include working with Europe to improve its energy security in both the short and long term. We will support partners such as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine so they can better work alongside the United States and NATO, as well as provide for their own defense.

And we will continue to impose significant costs on Russia through sanctions and other means while countering Moscow’s deceptive propaganda with the unvarnished truth. We will deter Russian aggression, remain alert to its strategic capabilities, and help our allies and partners resist Russian coercion over the long term, if necessary. At the same time, we will keep the door open to greater collaboration with Russia in areas of common interests, should it choose a different path—a path of peaceful cooperation that respects the sovereignty and democratic development of neighboring states.

In the Middle East, we will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people, confront external aggression against our allies and partners, ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world, and prevent the development, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction. … We are therefore investing in the ability of Israel, Jordan, and our Gulf partners to deter aggression while maintaining our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security, including its Qualitative Military Edge. … Resolving these connected conflicts, and enabling long-term stability in the region, requires more than the use and presence of American military forces. For one, it requires partners who can defend themselves. We are therefore investing in the ability of Israel, Jordan, and our Gulf partners to deter aggression while maintaining our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security, including its Qualitative Military Edge.”

That’s it; that’s all.

——

On 2 January 2014, the International Business Times bannered, “In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat to World Peace Is … America?” and reported that, “According to a new poll from WIN and Gallup International, the U.S. represents the largest threat to world peace today.” By far more people worldwide cited “United States” than any other country when asked which nation “is the greatest threat to peace in the world today.”

Here is Obama’s agent in Ukraine, the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, telling Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, whom to place at the top of the post-coup Government when the coup occurs. She issued this instruction to him on 4 February 2014, and the coup occurred on February 22nd, and her man “Yats” was appointed to lead the country on February 26th. His invasion of the rebellious region, the start of Ukraine’s civil war and ethnic cleansing, occurred on May 9th. And here are images and videos of his extermination program to get rid of those people. But:

“Russia’s aggression in Ukraine makes clear that European security and the international rules and norms against territorial aggression cannot be taken for granted. In response, we have led an international effort to support the Ukrainian people as they choose their own future and develop their democracy and economy.”

Right after Obama’s coup there, the people in Crimea, which had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954 and which the Soviet leader Khrushchev donated to Ukraine without even asking Crimea’s residents, declared their independence from the new Obama Ukraine. Two Gallup polls showed overwhelming sentiment among Crimeans to rejoin with Russia. But to Obama, that was “Russian aggression,” and Obama’s extremely bloody coup that had preceded that breakaway was not America’s aggression.

In 2009 Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel committee has never expressed remorse, nor even admitted that the award was simply premature. Every day they don’t admit that, is yet another nail in the coffin of the Nobel Committee’s credibility — credibility that’s now in a league along with Obama’s very bloody own, if that’s where they want it to remain.

The people that Obama is exterminating cannot be very happy about such hypocrisy. But to Obama, they are just ‘Terrorists.’ And that’s what the regime he installed is officially calling them. Their ‘Terrorism’ consists in having voted for the ‘wrong’ man.

Obama wants to get rid of the people but keep the land. And so Obama’s operatives are doing all they can to eliminate them. This is how he fights against ‘Russia’s aggression.’ Whatever Russia does to try to protect those people constitutes ‘aggression.’ But if Russia doesn’t stand firm there, then where will it — perhaps in Moscow, when U.S. missiles are flying from Ukraine against that city?

——

PS: On 12 February 2015, the Moscow Times headlined, “Russian Fear of U.S. Hypersonic Missiles Threatens New Arms Race,” and reported that a George W. Bush initiated, Barack Obama continued, U.S. missile-development program, called “Prompt Global Strike,” which would construct hypersonic missiles that travel so fast they’d eliminate Russia’s defenses before Russia could even launch its own missiles to respond to a U.S. attack, “could negate all previous agreements on the limitation and reduction of strategic nuclear weapons,” according to Vladimir Putin. Therefore, U.S. President Obama has been duly warned that Russia might, at any time, withdraw from all previous nuclear-arms agreements; in which case, both countries would necessarily have to redirect much of current government spending away from non-military toward military, which would be an enormous boon to U.S. and Russian arms-makers, but at the expense of everyone else, even if those weapons never end up being used — just a waste. Putin has basically told Obama that the moment when Prompt Global Strike starts to become a realistic possibility, all arms treaties with the U.S. will terminate, and there will be runaway military spending on both sides. There is no indication that Putin wants this to happen, but there are indications that Obama does — and certainly Putin is watching Obama’s actions, and American technological developments, very carefully.